Krysia Maritime Inc v Intership Ltd

Krysia Maritime Inc v Intership Ltd

The primary cause of the fouling was a loose pick-up rope in the water, or alternatively, excessively slack securing arrangements. Both EUROPA’s management and KRYSIA’s navigation contributed to the incident, with EUROPA’s fault assessed at 70% and KRYSIA’s at 30%.

Parties
Claimant: KRYSIA MARITIME INC; Defendant: INTERSHIP LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Admiralty / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Claimants succeed on liability, subject to apportionment.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Seamanship Standards, Hazard Management, Damage to Vessel
Maritime Law Admiralty Negligence Apportionment of Liability Seamanship Standards Hazard Management Damage to Vessel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KRYSIA MARITIME INC

Claimant

INTERSHIP LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What initially fouled KRYSIA’s outer port propeller?
  2. 2 Was the pick up rope loose in the water or secured to the pad-eye on EUROPA’s deck?
  3. 3 Were the securing arrangements excessively slack, contrary to good seamanship?

Ratio Decidendi

The primary cause of the fouling was a loose pick-up rope in the water, or alternatively, excessively slack securing arrangements. Both EUROPA’s management and KRYSIA’s navigation contributed to the incident, with EUROPA’s fault assessed at 70% and KRYSIA’s at 30%.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeed on liability, subject to apportionment.

Orders

  • Defendants liable for 70% of proved loss and damage; claimants liable for 30% due to their own fault.